Resist DC: Step by Step Plan for Freedom

I, like many people, believe that the Constitution is not a living document.Â The corollary to this principle is that if it is not living then it cannot die. However, the question of whether the Constitution is followed and enforced depends on you and me.Â We introduced the legislation outlined in Part I of the plan and predictably many Obama defenders in our state House began calling us racist and secessionist. In fact, the quote from our Speaker Pro Tem Jeff Morris (D â€“ Mount Vernon)Â was â€œWe want to lead the state out of recession. They want to lead the state out of the country.â€Â Obviously, this is absurd.Â The intent of the state sovereignty Bills are to erect barriers against an ever-encroaching federal bureaucracy, while keeping the nation unified. That said, Washington D. C. is on a course that will destroy our Constitutional Republic. Nationalized Health Care and a national Cap and Trade program will not lead us out of a recession but rather will further crush our economy.Â If the federal government would get out of the way, we would be free as individual states to fix our own problems as the founders intended.[i]

To that end, recently some Attorneys General across the country are questioning the constitutionality of Nationalized Health Care.Â In fact, at least 18 states are now suing the federal government claiming the $2.5 trillion healthcare system reform violates state sovereignty as protected in the U.S. Constitution and will force massive new spending on hard-pressed state governments. Â Interestingly, some of the state Attorneys General claim that only the judicial branch may decide what is or is not constitutional but not state elected representatives or county sheriffs.[ii] This flies in the face of the requirement set forth in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution (Oath to support the Constitution binding both federal and state representatives).Â To hold such a position renders that Oath of Office meaningless, and brings back the very scary proposition â€œbefehl ist befehlâ€ (an order is an order) used as a defense by Nazi officers at Nuremburg.Â It is important to know where your State Attorney General stands on this issue because Part II of the plan deals with state and local enforcement of unconstitutional laws.

The more pressure states put on Congress to audit the Federal Reserve System, the greater the chance is that it will be exposed as a private group of bankers profiteering at public expense and then be phased out.Â Like the state sovereignty resolutions, the Sound Money Resolution would put the government on notice to return to the original monetary system envisioned by our founders.[iii] This means an end to the fractional reserve banking as we know it and a return to currency that is backed by gold and silver and perhaps even commodities.

Dr. Edwin Viera Jr., a constitutional attorney and an expert in monetary theory who has litigated cases involving money issues, has said that the entire present monetary system is unconstitutional.Â He proposes a precious-metals-based monetary system in which the state government collects part of its tax revenue from corporations in gold.Â New Hampshire and Indiana, currently have that kind of legislation before them.Â I would add that the next step should be to establish a private currency exchange in conjunction with a new monetary system.Â This will be the subject of a future article.

Next, states can require the federal government to tender all payments in gold and silver.Â The U.S. Constitution in Article 1 section 10 clearly states â€œNo State shallâ€¦coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debtsâ€¦â€[iv] The practical result of returning to this constitutional requirement will likely be the federal government ceasing to send any money to the states.Â What an excellent day that would be! This would force states to budget and fix problems themselves without relying on federal handouts.Â Another benefit will be ensuring state solvency even if the federal government goes bankrupt.Â Lastly, it calls the bluff of the federal government.Â You will recall in Part I of the plan the creation of a Federal Tax Escrow Account, which would offset this loss of money.Â It will become immediately apparent which states send the federal government more money than they receive.

Step 4:Â If State Legislatures Fail, Introduce the Laws through the Initiative Process

The people are the final check and balance because power is inherent in the people.Â Many state legislatures will refuse to even hear the above ten bills when freedom-minded legislators introduce them.Â Such was the case in my own state of Washington.Â No matter. Â In many states, the people have reserved for themselves the final power of legislation through the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Process.

Twenty-four states currently have an Initiative process.Check here for the process in your state. Since the legislation is already written, it only needs to be slightly modified to include the words â€œBe it enacted by the people of [your state].â€Â Grassroots activists should be mindful that the ballot title and summary for an Initiative is going to require an attorney.Â Identify them now (yes Constitutional freedom-minded Attorneys exist like Stephen Pidgeon of Everett, Washington).

Next, activists should contact all freedom groups and bring them together into one network on the Internet.Â Remember that the Internet is to the state sovereignty movement what the printing press was to the Bible.Â This is not centralized control but merely a way to quickly transmit to, and share information with, thousands of like-minded people.Â For example, in Washington such a network called the â€œLiberty Groupsâ€ has started a state sovereignty initiative drive and website, Freedom Initiatives, and continues to share information and coordinate on many issues.Â This is not about who leads what.Such squabbles must quickly give way to the overarching mission of restoring our Constitutional Republic. This is also not a Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, or Democrat â€œthingâ€ but a â€œwe the peopleâ€ reclaiming our country â€œthing.â€

Before I move on, I want to address a couple of arguments that are typically raised by people who oppose the use of the Initiative process.Â The arguments usually fall along three lines and I will answer each in turn:

1)Â Â Â Â Â Direct Democracy is a dangerous thing and usually comes back around to bite you in the tail. This ignores the people as the final check and balance in our system. Furthermore, I believe we must exhaust all possible remedies at our disposal due to the urgency of the current situation.

2)Â Â Â Â Â If the Initiative fails, practically speaking, it is impossible to bring the issue up again even decades later. This assumes we have decades.Â The many experts I have read and talked to give our Constitutional Republic 6-10 years in a best-case scenario[v]and 6 months to 2 years worst case scenario.[vi] Now is the time to draw a line in the sandâ€¦our backs are against the wall.

3)Â Â Â Â Â It wastes precious time and resources. This assumes an initiative will fail and also ignores the benefit of being able to educate voters through the Initiative process while simultaneously galvanizing a core grass roots team.Â It also allows you to hold elected officials accountable by asking them point-blank â€œdo you support the Initiative to nullify Nationalized Health Care?â€

Step 5:Â Contact all CountySheriffs and get them to commit to keep their oaths.

As described in Part I the whole principle of a Sheriffâ€™s First bill is that no one is above the lawâ€¦including federal agents.[vii] Federal agents will claim they â€œhave the authority, period.â€ This begs a great question.Â How will a law passed at the federal level be enforced locally?Â The answer in almost every scenario involves the county Sheriff.Â This is the Achilles Heel of almost all current federal schemes to socialize our economy. That is also why in most states â€˜Task Forcesâ€ have been established to coordinate federal, state, and local law enforcement.Â If all politics is localâ€¦it can fairly be said that so is all enforcement of criminal and civil penalties.

Consequently, the laws we have are only as good as those officers that enforce them at the local level.Â Thus, the rise of tyranny must first come through both the United States Military and the County Sheriff.Â And this can only happen if those same people violate their oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and their own Stateâ€™s Constitution.Â As discussed in Part I, the county Sheriff is the primary (chief) law enforcement officer in the United States.Â Â Therefore, if you are an interested activist, you should make a personal visit to your County Sheriff.Â Here are some ideas for your visit:

Ask if your Sheriff will become an Oath Keeper.Â Oath Keepers is a nonprofit organization started by Stewart Rhodes (attorney and Army veteran) which advocates that its members (current and former military and law enforcement) uphold the Constitution of the United States should they be ordered to violate it.

Invite your Sheriff to publicly reaffirm his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and your respective state.

Ask your Sheriff if he has a local â€œSafety Committeeâ€ or similar group, which is the modern day version of a posse and what the requirements are to join.[viii] Become engaged with the local Sheriffâ€™s office, it will help them with critical manpower needs and, it will give you an opportunity to try and influence this critical link in our governmental chain.

Summary

5 Steps

Reclaim State Sovereignty through key Nullification Legislation

Erect an Impenetrable Barrier around the 2nd Amendment and the County Sheriff

There are many other ideas out there but we believed these would be quickest way to restore our Constitutional Republic.Â This is not to say that securing our borders, state enforcement of immigration laws, repealing the 17th Amendment, eliminating 501(c)(3) for churches, reforming the elections process, restraining the courts, or restoring grand jury presentments are not important and worthy goals.Â But the legislation as outlined above is the immediate priority.Â To be clear, Legislation alone is not the answer nor do we need to change the face of our national government to change the direction of our country.Â Â Â Â Ultimately the survival of our Constitutional Republic depends on the people.Â It depends on the courage and boldness of each one of us.Â It depends on each one of us answering â€œeverythingâ€ to the question â€œwhat am I willing to sacrifice for freedom?â€ The fight for freedom is ultimately a matter of the heart before it is a county or state movement.Â And so I pray you will help restore our Constitutional Republic so that our children and grandchildren may inherit, as we did, the blessings of liberty and freedom.

Matthew Shea [send him email] is a State Representative in Washington’s 4th District. He’s the author of HJM4009 for State Sovereignty. Â Visit his website.

[i]â€œEach State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.â€ Publius (James Madison) Federalist No. 39. 1788.

[ii]In a letter dated February 10, 2010, Idahoâ€™s Attorney General Lawrence G. Wasden wrote: â€œIt is simply not within the Idaho Attorney General’s or the Idaho Legislature’s authority to declare federal laws null and void; that authority lies exclusively with the Supreme Court of the United States and the federal courts created by Congress.â€Â Notably, Mr. Wasden cites no authority for this proposition.

[iii]The Federal Monetary System was established in 1792 with the creation of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia. The first American coins were struck in 1793. The U.S. Coinage Act of 1792, consistent with the Constitution, provided for a U.S. Mint, which stamped silver and gold coins. The importance of this Act cannot be stressed enough.Â The Act invoked the death penalty for anyone found to be debasing money.Â President George Washington also mentions the importance of the national currency backed by gold and silver throughout his initial term of office and he contributed his own silver for the initial coins minted. The purchase of The US Mint in Philadelphia was the first money appropriated by Congress for a building to be used for a public purpose. It was purchased for a total of $4,266.67 on July 18, 1792.

[vii]Some have claimed that a Sheriff First law prevents federal agents from arresting terrorists and/or would hamper their ability to do so.Â This is absurd for many reasons not the least of which is the Task Force example given.Â Federal agents are already working with county Sheriffs and getting permission would not â€œstallâ€ an operation.Â However, a clause clarifying this should be added to any Sheriff First bill so that the issue is crystal clear.Â Â Also, tying this legislation to the enforcement of a specific bill like Nationalized Health Care would remove this objection.

[viii]Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is a leader in the country on the formation of a modern day â€œposse.â€

Though the Constitution does not say that money must be gold and silver coin, the Constitution does have the word "dollar" in it. Two places. A dollar, in the Constitution of the United States, is a Spanish Milled Dollar coin, or its equivalent, in coin form, containing 371.25 grains of fine silver.

In his work, "What is the Dollar in the United States" (online), its author, Dan Goodman, shows that the Continental Congress established the dollar, as a coin, containing containing 375.64 grains of fine silver, equivalent to the then current Spanish Milled Dollar coin. The United States Congress completed the work of the Continental Congress by establishing a mint to coin the dollar (and parts thereof). However, the dollar was defined to be a coin, containing 371.25 grains of fine silver, equivalent to the then current Spanish Milled Dollar coin. The reason for the change in the number of grains of fine silver, was, according to Alexander Hamilton, in his report of the establishment of a Mint (Jaunuary 28 1791), that "[t]he dollar originally contemplated in the money transactions of this country, by successive diminutions of its weight and fineness (by the country of Spain), has sustained a depreciation of five per cent. . . . This, nevertheless, is the condition of one which, having no coins of its own, adopts with implicit confidence those of other countries."

So, though money under the Constitution may not include gold or silver coin, a dollar, however, is under the Constitution a silver coin containing 371.25 grains of fine silver. And since debts are generally denominated in terms of dollars, then only silver coin (and maybe gold coin) can be tender in payment of the debt.

On the issue of legal tender:

The United States cannot make its obligations a legal tender in payment of private debts. In the case of Julliard v. Greenman, the United States Supreme Court held that: 1) Congress had the power to make its obligations a legal tender in the payment of private debts, and 2) that this power was an implied power under the Constitution based on the case of McCulloch v. State of Maryland. The Court determined that this implied power of making the obligations of the United States a legal tender in payment of private debts was a means (incident) to the power (expressly) given to Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

However, the case of McCulloch v. State of Maryland was wrongly decided. The concept of implied powers does not exist in the Constitution. In fact, such a concept, if a doctrine would be in conflict with the doctrine that the Congress is a government of enumerated powers. As such, Congress does not have the power to make its obligations a legal tender in payment of debts, since the concept of implied powers does not exist in the Constitution. Since the power is not granted (expressly) to Congress, the power to make its obligations a legal tender in payment of private debts is not given to Congress under the Constitution of the United States. This is shown in the work, "The United States government does not have the power to make its obligations a legal tender" (online) by Dan Goodman.